Recommended Posts

Will sight/aiming on tanks be realistic in the future? I hope. I can't speak for the Abrams but I was a gunner for the Leopard 2 MBT so I can tell you how that works at least. I suspect the Abrams to be very similar.

Basically. Aiming with a tank is not hard. It is very easy actually. Even on the move. The sights are mounted on a mirror that can move instantly long before the turret has started to move those 15 tonnes. This is all good. Now once you have acquired a target, the first thing you do is press a button to fire a single laser shot. This gives you the distance, in numbers at the bottom as is visible in Squad already. However, please note that this eye-dangerous laser isn't active all the time so the distance will not always be visible and move up and down when you aim at things. There is actually also a reason for this and that is because there are things that warn for lasers, but more importantly you don't want a target being missed because it drives behind a tree close by, right? So, first you take measurement. Then comes the second part. You aim exactly at the middle of the target. Actually between the turret and the chassi if it is a tank. Then you press the button and YOU ALWAYS Hit basically. If it is a stationary target and measurement is correct, even in the move you are 99% going to hit it spot on km away when pointing the cross hair EXACTLY ON TARGET! The computer does all the calculation for so you don't have to aim above or anything like that at all.

Now comes the third part. In case a vehicle is moving and you have already done your single range measurement with your laser, what you do is to follow the vehicle with the sights centered mid target at exactly the same speed the vehicle is moving - ALWAYS CENTERED, then you press AND HOLD a certain button which tells the computer to calculate exactly how much in front of the vehicle the gun should shoot in order to hit the vehicle. If you do it right and the vehicle is moving at a constant speed, your cross hairs centered all the time, you will basically always hit as well as long as the vehicle is not moving to fast towards or from you, which would change the distance thus tell the computer to aim too far in front, or too little in front of the vehicle. Distance is absolutely crucial here maybe more so than for a stationary targets because if it is a fast moving vehicle sideways, it will have moved quite a distance before the round hits, compared to a stationary target where the time to a hit is not an issue, only the height above the target that the cannon should elevate to. The round will land when it lands, so to speak.

Now it would be really cool if you could implement at least one button for firing a single laser round showing the distance at the bottom, automatically adjusting cannon, i.e. the user don't have to compensate upwards.

It would also be cool if you could implement that second "hold-to-follow" button to let the cannon auto adjust where to aim by holding it down. Please note that it is not mandatory to use this function. If the distance is correct, you could aim in front of the vehicle as well manually, but it would be much harder.

So, 2 buttons please! Only one mandatory to use. Don't say it will scare of rookies because rookies are already scared off by the much more complicated mortars in such a case. Plus it is actually easy to learn and fun too do it the real way. Also doing it the real way should be rewarding I think. Please note that running and gunning will still be possible of course.

For the second button I would suggest a quirk to make it work better with a mouse. This is because when using a mouse you have to constantly move your hand which reduces precision A LOT. In the tank, instead, you turn the controller thereby telling it to keep turning by the amount of speed you want, so to speak. Like a steering wheel in a car, you don't constantly have to move the steering wheel, right? So what I would suggest is this: First you use the mouse to follow the target matching the speed of the target by moving your hand, then you press and hold button 2 to keep the sights MOVING at the speed and direction you had when you started pressing the button, thereby disconnecting the mouse input so to speak. If you would want to readjust you could just release the button and follow again with your mouse then press and hold again to rest your hand while the turret keeps moving. This would be the closest match to the real deal using a mouse I believe.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Aiming with a tank is not hard. It is very easy actually. Even on the move.

Quote

Turret Stabilization

One feature we're working on that features heavily for a lot of modern turrets is a stabilisation system that allows the user to focus on a particular direction for the main gun with a keypress, then the turret will attempt to stabilise the gun by counteracting the movements of the vehicle.

This will help greatly in allowing such vehicles to fire on the move, improving the pace and style of vehicular combat and giving it a different flavour to the World War 2 style of, "stop, shoot, & move." This system is still in its early prototyping stage, but we find it a necessary component in preparation to introduce main battle tanks to the game.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think Tanks are tanks. How can they be too easy? Secondly, you would have to learn how it works. I think currently how it works is WW2-style shooting actually.

Also, furthermore, you could say that currently the Tow missile system is overpowered compared to tanks because they have no problem aiming (with guidance), but tanks do. Put in more Tow's to counter the tanks as well.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this is one of the many situations in which less realistic approach is much better for overall gameplay. I tend to think of Squad kinda like if it was a movie with "inspired by real events" in the opening credits - it has some similarities with the real thing, maybe even a lot of them, but I never make the mistake of confusing it with an accurate representation of events.

I understand why a former serviceman would want his job portrayed in as much detail as possible, but you have to think about the ramifications this could have for everybody else in the game, not just the benefits for tank gunners.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this is one of the many situations in which less realistic approach is much better for overall gameplay. I tend to think of Squad kinda like if it was a movie with "inspired by real events" in the opening credits - it has some similarities with the real thing, maybe even a lot of them, but I never make the mistake of confusing it with an accurate representation of events.

I understand why a former serviceman would want his job portrayed in as much detail as possible, but you have to think about the ramifications this could have for everybody else in the game, not just the benefits for tank gunners.

I don't think so. That reasoning led to Battlefield series games with useless weapons. The idea behind project reality and squad has always been: Have fun with real weapons that hurt!

Remember, on maps with tanks, both parties should be equal. That means Abrams vs T72, or missile ATGMs for infantry. Infantry better know to stay in cover until Tanks shows weak spots. Cities are murder holes for tanks. This is where infantry can easily defeat a tank using appropriate weapon systems.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think Tanks are tanks. How can they be too easy? Secondly, you would have to learn how it works. I think currently how it works is WW2-style shooting actually.

Also, furthermore, you could say that currently the Tow missile system is overpowered compared to tanks because they have no problem aiming (with guidance), but tanks do. Put in more Tow's to counter the tanks as well.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think so. That reasoning led to Battlefield series games with useless weapons. The idea behind project reality and squad has always been: Have fun with real weapons that hurt!

Remember, on maps with tanks, both parties should be equal. That means Abrams vs T72, or missile ATGMs for infantry. Infantry better know to stay in cover until Tanks shows weak spots. Cities are murder holes for tanks. This is where infantry can easily defeat a tank using appropriate weapon systems.

As someone who loves to be in a vehicle i honestly prefer manually aiming my gun. The range finder and gunner sight with the range grids already make it easy enough, tho at least right now it still takes some skill to hit your target.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As someone who loves to be in a vehicle i honestly prefer manually aiming my gun. The range finder and gunner sight with the range grids already make it easy enough, tho at least right now it still takes some skill to hit your target.

There is no skill with the TOW though. TOW will hit tank but tank won't hit TOW.

7 hours ago, Thegreenzzz said:

sure communication will be a problem too

Why is that?

There is also going to be helicopters later on with Hellfire missiles. Tanks will be completely vulnerable towards them without automatic fire control computer aiming. It is difficult enough to hit a helicopter moving with fire control, but will be really hard without.

Edited November 3, 2018 by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I tend to think of Squad kinda like if it was a movie with "inspired by real events" in the opening credits - it has some similarities with the real thing, maybe even a lot of them, but I never make the mistake of confusing it with an accurate representation of events.

+1 **** that's a good analogy

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There is no skill with the TOW though. TOW will hit tank but tank won't hit TOW.

Why's thar? You still need to manually aim the TOW, moving targets are not the easiest to hit. With the tools the tank gunner has, it's not too difficult to hit the TOW, especially since it's a target that can't move into cover.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why's thar? You still need to manually aim the TOW, moving targets are not the easiest to hit. With the tools the tank gunner has, it's not too difficult to hit the TOW, especially since it's a target that can't move into cover.

OK a little bit but it's still a guided missile intended to destroy moving vehicles. A rocket would take real skills. Besides a Tank is a valuable asset and a TOW is a cheap-ass emplacement that you can litter everywhere. A tank is also a big target compared to a small hidden missile launcher.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TOW and Kornet-E kills tanks with one hit but not instantly, unless you manage to take away the ammo or something like that. At least in Test Range.

When you hit a MBT with one of those missiles, let's say in the front, they let the tank with nearly no health and on fire; this allow the crew to escape or, with the toolbox I think, able to try to take the fire out. But, you have like 15 or 20 seconds before the tank goes boom.

So, even in the best possible scenario, missile hit = kill 99 out of 100 times. And this will be even worse when the official attack helos make their way into the battle.

Sorry about my english.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Artificially nerfing tanks to make them WW2-era with "manually toggled stabilization" and no real fire control system is honestly absurd for a game that wants to try and approach modern warfare. The whole point of tanks is that they dominate against infantry in the open. They should be something to be feared from long distance if you don't have air support or indirect fire or TOWs that can suppress them. Even if you learn how to operate a modern FCS I'm willing to bet 90% of the player base jumping into a tank won't have a good handle on gunnery techniques to actually achieve the 90%+ first round hit rates that western tank crews get. You need to know how to achieve a steady track, know when to dump lead, know how to ensure your FCS round selection is accurate, know what return to select when the LRF returns multiple distances, etc...

Armored warfare should be more about strategic positioning and maneuvering than how well you can guess the firing solution. Real tanks will deflect sabot to the mantlet all day long if they get to hull-down.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The whole point of tanks is that they dominate against infantry in the open. They should be something to be feared from long distance if you don't have air support or indirect fire or TOWs that can suppress them.

Yea, I can attest, this is exactly how tanks have been in the v12 games I've got to see them in, you cant even see them and they're annihilating multiple squads, and their support vehicles in minutes. (unless they happen to drive into the massive craters and get stuck xD)

48 minutes ago, joshuaho96 said:

Even if you learn how to operate a modern FCS I'm willing to bet 90% of the player base jumping into a tank won't have a good handle on gunnery techniques to actually achieve the 90%+ first round hit rates that western tank crews get. You need to know how to achieve a steady track, know when to dump lead, know how to ensure your FCS round selection is accurate, know what return to select when the LRF returns multiple distances, etc...

Well since Modern FCS's are much more simple to operate than they were, since they are digital, i'd say that would simply make tanks too deadly, in the sense that we might as well not have infantry, might as well just be a tank fighting sim. From my interpretation, you mean the stabilization shouldn't be manual(I agree, when would you want it off?) But also that its essentially point and shoot on the move. I disagree, the game isn't realism simulator 2019, we have to consider making it actually fun to play for people not in a tank.

also a family member who was a MBT gunner through Afghanistan for CDN Army, who learned on Korean war Systems to Modern.

54 minutes ago, joshuaho96 said:

Armored warfare should be more about strategic positioning and maneuvering than how well you can guess the firing solution.

I think it deserves a skill curve with communication, strategic positioning, maneuvering, AND getting a fire solution with what is provided to you, you can laze the target and adjust fire, maybe 3 shots before you make a connection, with an inexperienced gunner, that's already deadly AF. The first shot is guessing, the second and third is Doping, (Data on previous engagement) Which will improve if your willing to spend an hour at the range and actually learn what you're doing. Also it helps to have a Commander in seat to delegate high value targets, almost immediately, and it works.

1 hour ago, joshuaho96 said:

Real tanks will deflect sabot to the mantlet all day long if they get to hull-down.

No, no they will not. NO tank can survive a constant Sabot barrage anywhere on the body, That round is purely designed to turn any material into fiery dust, Stabdard design AT rounds, which a lot of tanks still have available? sure, yes. I'd like to see your sources on any material known to man even diamond that can withstand even 7, Tungsten or Depleted Uranium rounds directly. (Pro tip, even armor made from Depleted uranium or Tungsten will fail after a couple). But i am excited to learn about this material, as it would allow us to travel very quickly through space without worry.

Based on the physics alone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Will sight/aiming on tanks be realistic in the future? I hope. I can't speak for the Abrams but I was a gunner for the Leopard 2 MBT so I can tell you how that works at least. I suspect the Abrams to be very similar.

Basically. Aiming with a tank is not hard. It is very easy actually. Even on the move. The sights are mounted on a mirror that can move instantly long before the turret has started to move those 15 tonnes. This is all good. Now once you have acquired a target, the first thing you do is press a button to fire a single laser shot. This gives you the distance, in numbers at the bottom as is visible in Squad already. However, please note that this eye-dangerous laser isn't active all the time so the distance will not always be visible and move up and down when you aim at things. There is actually also a reason for this and that is because there are things that warn for lasers, but more importantly you don't want a target being missed because it drives behind a tree close by, right? So, first you take measurement. Then comes the second part. You aim exactly at the middle of the target. Actually between the turret and the chassi if it is a tank. Then you press the button and YOU ALWAYS Hit basically. If it is a stationary target and measurement is correct, even in the move you are 99% going to hit it spot on km away when pointing the cross hair EXACTLY ON TARGET! The computer does all the calculation for so you don't have to aim above or anything like that at all.

Now comes the third part. In case a vehicle is moving and you have already done your single range measurement with your laser, what you do is to follow the vehicle with the sights centered mid target at exactly the same speed the vehicle is moving - ALWAYS CENTERED, then you press AND HOLD a certain button which tells the computer to calculate exactly how much in front of the vehicle the gun should shoot in order to hit the vehicle. If you do it right and the vehicle is moving at a constant speed, your cross hairs centered all the time, you will basically always hit as well as long as the vehicle is not moving to fast towards or from you, which would change the distance thus tell the computer to aim too far in front, or too little in front of the vehicle. Distance is absolutely crucial here maybe more so than for a stationary targets because if it is a fast moving vehicle sideways, it will have moved quite a distance before the round hits, compared to a stationary target where the time to a hit is not an issue, only the height above the target that the cannon should elevate to. The round will land when it lands, so to speak.

Now it would be really cool if you could implement at least one button for firing a single laser round showing the distance at the bottom, automatically adjusting cannon, i.e. the user don't have to compensate upwards.

It would also be cool if you could implement that second "hold-to-follow" button to let the cannon auto adjust where to aim by holding it down. Please note that it is not mandatory to use this function. If the distance is correct, you could aim in front of the vehicle as well manually, but it would be much harder.

So, 2 buttons please! Only one mandatory to use. Don't say it will scare of rookies because rookies are already scared off by the much more complicated mortars in such a case. Plus it is actually easy to learn and fun too do it the real way. Also doing it the real way should be rewarding I think. Please note that running and gunning will still be possible of course.

For the second button I would suggest a quirk to make it work better with a mouse. This is because when using a mouse you have to constantly move your hand which reduces precision A LOT. In the tank, instead, you turn the controller thereby telling it to keep turning by the amount of speed you want, so to speak. Like a steering wheel in a car, you don't constantly have to move the steering wheel, right? So what I would suggest is this: First you use the mouse to follow the target matching the speed of the target by moving your hand, then you press and hold button 2 to keep the sights MOVING at the speed and direction you had when you started pressing the button, thereby disconnecting the mouse input so to speak. If you would want to readjust you could just release the button and follow again with your mouse then press and hold again to rest your hand while the turret keeps moving. This would be the closest match to the real deal using a mouse I believe.

Just a few suggestions. Thanks for a better and better game!

What is you describing is basically the same way M1 Abrams ballistic computer works (or for that matter of fact any modern main battle tank ballistic computer besides older versions of Russian T 72 series) as well and I believe realistic tank aiming and shooting should be in Squad. Why? Because in the future Offworld industries already mentioned that they wanted to add Heavy Anti tank Weapons such as Javelin, Metis and others. When such lethal and portable weapons will be introduced, Squad in game tanks will be on equal footing or even at worse situations on the maps that involve urban and mountainous combat (Al Bastrah, Narva, Logar Valley) (already at disadvantage with Kornet and TOW). Why? Because infantry can literally sneak up and fire on the tanks at their opportunity, while tanks are limited in mobility and firepower potential in such terrains due to highly uneven terrain and high amount of cover and concealment for infantry to fight such tanks.

What currently Squad have in game is "Manual Aim targeting" that is used when digital systems on board of the modern battle tank fail.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Caliell

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yea, I can attest, this is exactly how tanks have been in the v12 games I've got to see them in, you cant even see them and they're annihilating multiple squads, and their support vehicles in minutes. (unless they happen to drive into the massive craters and get stuck xD)

Well since Modern FCS's are much more simple to operate than they were, since they are digital, i'd say that would simply make tanks too deadly, in the sense that we might as well not have infantry, might as well just be a tank fighting sim. From my interpretation, you mean the stabilization shouldn't be manual(I agree, when would you want it off?) But also that its essentially point and shoot on the move. I disagree, the game isn't realism simulator 2019, we have to consider making it actually fun to play for people not in a tank.

also a family member who was a MBT gunner through Afghanistan for CDN Army, who learned on Korean war Systems to Modern.

All the stuff I'm talking about is how modern FCSes work. Older stuff like the M60A3 or the T72A is much, much more complicated to use. The M60A3 in particular does need to have gun stabilization enabled and disabled on the fly, and the gunner is responsible for enabling/disabling cant compensation when the AFV is in motion.

And it's not like infantry can't fight back against tanks, give some of them Javelins and RPG-29s and the meta will work itself out. Lots of TDs like TOW Humvees, BRDM Spandrels, Shturm MTLBs, Stryker MGVs, etc... and the ability for things like artillery on call to disable the GPS/CITV/tracks/etc can easily make a realistic mechanic balanced.

I would also argue that much of the balance here comes down to map design. If you make a map that is like 73 Easting with literally nothing but desert then obviously infantry will just get destroyed by armor and air support. But a map like Al Basra with actual urban combat and a tank has no chance of doing anything deep in the city without immediately getting IEDed, RPGed, or hitting a mine.

1 hour ago, Serp403 said:

No, no they will not. NO tank can survive a constant Sabot barrage anywhere on the body, That round is purely designed to turn any material into fiery dust, Stabdard design AT rounds, which a lot of tanks still have available? sure, yes. I'd like to see your sources on any material known to man even diamond that can withstand even 7, Tungsten or Depleted Uranium rounds directly. (Pro tip, even armor made from Depleted uranium or Tungsten will fail after a couple). But i am excited to learn about this material, as it would allow us to travel very quickly through space without worry.

Based on the physics alone.

M1A2 SEP turret front is roughly 950mm RHAe against sabot. M829A3 penetration roughly 840mm RHAe going by SB Pro PE stats. Realistically the likelihood that you penetrate the exact same place twice is very unlikely, and the armor isn't like a piece of glass where shooting it once shatters it to the point of uselessness.

I'm willing to bet that a modern tank can take multiple sabot hits to the turret front, especially at realistic engagement distances of 1+ km. Otherwise there is literally no reason for a tank to weigh 70 tons.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All the stuff I'm talking about is how modern FCSes work. Older stuff like the M60A3 or the T72A is much, much more complicated to use. The M60A3 in particular does need to have gun stabilization enabled and disabled on the fly, and the gunner is responsible for enabling/disabling cant compensation when the AFV is in motion.

Yea, I think that realistic concepts, potentially not period accurate stuff, should be used to hinder use(to make sure that in-game, you'd better have some skill), instead of being automatic. turret stabilization on modern vehicles, should still be automatic, IMO.

13 minutes ago, joshuaho96 said:

And it's not like infantry can't fight back against tanks, give some of them Javelins and RPG-29s and the meta will work itself out. Lots of TDs like TOW Humvees, BRDM Spandrels, Shturm MTLBs, Stryker MGVs, etc... and the ability for things like artillery on call to disable the GPS/CITV/tracks/etc can easily make a realistic mechanic balanced.

They were estimated at 1.5 klicks away. But we don't have Javelins(Redacted). they really can be hard to kill completely. when they're more than a kilometer away, sometimes you cry. a lot.